I have worked here in Washington, DC, for about six years now. For much
of that time, every morning, there has been a shabby, crazy woman in tiger-striped
makeup who camps herself out beside a magnificent statue of Christopher
Columbus that stands between Union Station and the Capitol.

Smack in the path of a heavy stream of foot traffic, she is the first
impression thousands of visitors from around America and all over the
globe have of Washington. She has been there through most, if not all,
of Bill Clinton's presidency, vanishing every winter only to reappear
every spring.

Many
conservative commentators have been predicting a sudden resurgence of
interest in "homelessness" by the liberal media and their allies
in political office. After the endless caterwauling we heard about this
issue under Presidents Reagan and Bush, which contrasts sharply with the
utter silence about it while Bill Clinton was president, it will indeed
be interesting to see whether that old political weapon of the Left is
hauled out and used once again against the new President Bush. If a Republican
has been in office for a while, the existence of "homelessness"
must become his fault, and his failure to solve the problem will be blamed
on his supposed cruelty and hatred for the weak.

I think these predictions are probably right. And conservatives need
to prepare for this onslaught.

The first thing for us to remember and repeat is that the very terms
"homeless" and "homelessness" are politically correct
euphemisms, which is to say, lies. They are lies because they are deliberately
misleading; they lead one's attention to a peripheral problem (the lack
of a home) instead of the central problems (drinking and drug abuse, mental
illness, and old-fashioned sloth). The crazy mumbling men I see every
evening, or the healthy men who have decided to lie around outside during
the day or bother honest people making their way to and from work (read:
bums), will not become model citizens if they are suddenly presented with
the keys to a home.

If that sort of thing worked, public housing would be the safest and
nicest areas to live in.
Why, then, are they called "homeless" instead of "bums",
"winos", and "mentally unbalanced"? Because we are
meant to be convinced that, but for a few paychecks, we could be those
people. Thus, we should feel fear for the future, doubt about the justice
of free enterprise capitalism, and, most importantly, shame for our civilization
and way of life. This helps push along the Politically Correct agenda,
and to preserve the welfare state.

Sometimes, yes, someone otherwise honest and hardworking falls into misfortune,
loses his home or can't pay his rent, and sleeps in his car or at a church
shelter for a while until he gets back on his feet.

But the publicity accorded such cases is misleadingly disproportionate.
By far most "homeless" people are exactly what they seem: lazy,
addicted, or insane.

My father grew up in New York City in the 1930's. The Great Depression,
the most crushing economic collapse in many lifetimes, was a daily reality.
As a child he roamed all over the city via its trolleys and subways. And
yet, he never saw people sleeping on grates and benches, wandering around
draped in blankets, camped out in front of every subway stop. Nor did
the vast majority of urban Americans. Such things were unheard of.

Beggars just hanging around or pestering honest people in the streets
was something every American associated with faraway lands, cities like
Cairo, Mexico City, Calcutta. That's why Washington DC today, and other
American cities, are still a shock for my father. The character and fabric
of daily life in America's urban centers, even our financial, shopping,
government, and recreational districts, has changed dramatically for the
worse.

Left-wing politicians and, to a great degree, left-wing judicial activism,
are responsible for this collapse. Generations ago, police officers would
simply arrest vagrants for violating laws against, well, vagrancy. And
those not in their right minds were kept in mental hospitals, and given
treatment.

Once the Left was finished, however, the mentally ill could not be detained
or treated against their will if they were deemed not a danger to themselves
or others. And great solicitous care was taken for the rights of bums;
now a paper bag surrounding a bottle of rotgut cannot be opened by the
police as proof that a wino is violating the city's ban on drinking in
public, not without a search warrant.

And the parks and sidewalks of America's cities take on the character
of miserable Third World slums. The Left has much to answer for, especially
its cohorts on the federal bench who legislate rather than interpret,
as well as the media that continues to blame "homelessness"
on "selfish" conservatives. And that's the second thing we should
remember to speak up about when the liberals begin the "homeless"
game again.

Leo O'Drudy is a host of Direct Line, Free
Congress' live interactive Renaissance Network television program.